In the Interest of Justice (Kindle Edition)

by Joel Seidemann (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Despite what the subtitle says, most of the high-profile cases that draw Seidemann's focus are from the last quarter-century (a much shorter span than that covered in another volume of closing arguments, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down by Michael Lief and Mitchell Caldwell. The usual suspects (so to speak) are here: Johnnie Cochran's summation in O.J. Simpson's criminal trial, the prosecutors' opening statements in the cases of Adolf Eichmann and Timothy McVeigh. Seidemann, an assistant DA in New York City for over two decades, also offers three cases in which defendants represented themselves, including accused al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, though these and other cases (Martha Stewart, Marv Albert) seem included more for their notoriety than for the quality of the prose or legal arguments. But then there is William Jennings Bryan's eloquent, if debatable summation in the Scopes trial, proclaiming the amorality, if not the immorality, of science. Seidemann does achieve his two goals: to entertain the reader with legal drama and to remind the reader of some important details—that O.J., for instance, won his criminal case but lost in the civil suit. Seidemann's greatest service is to provide brief but thorough annotations of the cases, in which he considers some of the reasons behind an argument's success or failure.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description

E-Book Extra: The Quotable Courtroom

Drawing from some of the most well-known courtroom cases of our time, this rich and rewarding volume collects more than two dozen of the most memorable opening and closing arguments made by top prosecutors and defense attorneys in the last 100 years. Carefully selected to explore every major aspect and challenge of the legal process, the speeches showcased here highlight the tactics and strategies, colorful language, and stirring rhetoric that lawyers use to win judge and jury to their side.

With a shrewd eye for courtroom stratagems and a keen understanding of the social currents that shape them, Manhattan assistant district attorney Joel Seidemann introduces and illuminates each speech from an insider's perspective. From an Israeli prosecutor's heart-wrenching speech against Adolf Eichmann to the chilling reenactment of Timothy McVeigh's meticulous planning of the Oklahoma City bombing, we witness the power of an impassioned presentation to tip the scales toward the fulfillment of justice.

Arguments from other landmark trials are included to reveal the smartest tricks of the trial lawyer's trade. Why did O.J. win the criminal case and lose the civil one? Why did the jury acquit the cops who shot Amadou Diallo, even though they fired forty-one shots at an unarmed man? Why was Sean "Puffy" Combs acquitted of all charges after that mysterious shootout in a NYC nightclub? In the Interest of Justice sheds light on such questions and celebrates the fascinating art of courtroom persuasion.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Format: Kindle Edition
• File Size: 553 KB
• Print Length: 384 pages
• Simultaneous Device Usage: Up to 5 simultaneous devices, per publisher limits
• Publisher: HarperCollins e-books (October 19, 2004)
• Sold by: Amazon Digital Services
• Language: English
• ASIN: B000FC2KJC
• Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #16,102 in Kindle Store (See Bestsellers in Kindle Store)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #1 in	Kindle Store > Kindle Books > Nonfiction > Professional & Technical > Law > Procedures & Litigation > Trial Practice
  #1 in	Kindle Store > Kindle Books > Nonfiction > Law > Procedures & Litigation > Trial Practice
  #2 in	Kindle Store > Kindle Books > Nonfiction > Professional & Technical > Law > One-L > Legal Profession

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Came up a tad short of its goal..., June 12, 2006

By	Happy-Lee (Vegas) - See all my reviews

This review is from: In the Interest of Justice: Great Opening and Closing Arguments of the Last 100 Years (Hardcover)

This book was a good read for a dreary return flight from DC. It falls short of the promise of its title. That said, every opening and closing statement in this book contained a valuable lesson for trial attorneys, and each statement makes a compelling read. I give this book 3 stars because it doesn't quite live up to its title. Perhaps "Some Really Cool Openings and Closings I liked" would've been a more appropriate title for the book.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Superb snapshot of 20th century legal cultural literacy, June 18, 2005

By	Jon Torodash (Wilmington, DE USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: In the Interest of Justice: Great Opening and Closing Arguments of the Last 100 Years (Hardcover)

With the rapid growth of sensationalist legal coverage on TV news and primetime courtroom drama a la "The Practice", it can be difficult to understand fully the merits of a good trial lawyer's rhetorical virtuoso aside from the twists, turns, and socio-political backdrop which typically capture Americans' attention. With few exceptions, (e.g. Scopes trial, O.J. Simpson trial) the lawyer, that civic advocate and protector of justice, rarely receives deserved recognition. We sit collectively on the edge of our seats with eyes and ears pealed for damning witness testimonies and blood-stained clothes. Evidence is rarely that clear, Seidemann informs us, and most real life cases turn on the efficacy of the lawyer. This book renews our appreciation for a profession derided so often for its dishonesty that we have forgotten the sad and dangerous implications behind the humor. Within these pages of heartwrenching tragedies and controversies that rocked our nation, you will surely reexperience memories of the incidents as the opening/closing statements verify or challenge what you believe. Seidemann reminds us that we have conferred upon lawyers the great responsibility of juridicial guardianship, in order to shake us out of complacency and reaffirm our right to demand their rectitude and loyalty to their oath.

For Generation Y and the Millenials, "In the Interest of Justice" should be required reading for the oft neglected legal aspect of cultural literacy. Direct accounts of the gruesome atrocities perpetuated by Adolph Eichmann and the SS, Johnny Cochran's convoluted deconstruction of the Simpson evidence, the Bernard Goetz incident, and the unmitigated hatred of Zacharias Moussaoui in his own words far exceed detached summaries of such pivotal moments in the American psyche. Though older generations have understood and internalized their meaning by living through these events, imperceptibly they seem to hold less and less power as time goes by and new leaders of society step up to the fore. Hopefully, this book will spur other writers to popularize equally important judicial landmarks with the same care to the preservation of the primary evidence and with similar astute and fair explanations. These are more than exciting cases and history lessons: Seidemann compels us to consider personally the merits and risks of the sometimes flawed but inviolable bedrock of American freedom and security: its criminal justice system.

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Book of enormous importance to aspiring trial lawyers, December 24, 2004

By	J. Maniha (San Francisco, CA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: In the Interest of Justice: Great Opening and Closing Arguments of the Last 100 Years (Hardcover)

One thing that caught my eye is the different ways Jay Goldberg was able to change approaches from that of humor in they Bess Meyerson case to biting summation in a case involving Sammy "The Bull" Gravano. It seems to me few lawyers (if any) are able to recognize that according to Mark Twain "a laughing jury seldom convicts". But then again, you have to have inborn capacity to switch approaches that would result in laughing a case out of court and then approaching another case with complete hostility to an adversaries witness. My kudos go to the author as well as to Mr. Goldberg.